Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

Mike_Martin
Full Member
Registered: 07/21/09
Posts: 452
Loc: Between Chicago and NJ, USA

JFP,In my opinion it sounds and PLAYS completely different. The samples (although taken from the same original instrument) are in an engine that allow them to be significantly more expressive and melodic. As Dewster says, more dynamic range and more timbre variation.

Thanks for the interesting review dewster, and kudos to Mike for submitting the recording.

Just to clarify, what is the approximate difference in sample size between the PX-330 and PX-350? I recall reading something along the lines of a 3x increase in memory, with lossless compression etc. Is that evident in this DPBSD submission?

This seems like a very welcome increase in attack sample length. This, added to the more powerful sound engine, improved action and onboard audio recording makes the PX-350 look like a fantastic choice at its price point.

Just to clarify, what is the approximate difference in sample size between the PX-330 and PX-350? I recall reading something along the lines of a 3x increase in memory, with lossless compression etc. Is that evident in this DPBSD submission?

Layers are reportedly the same (4). I'm not sure what to make of the lossless compression statements.

The DPBSD testing shows loop samples are roughly the same length, stretching is ~20% less, and attack samples are roughly 3x longer.

Commenting generally, these specs are difficult for me to interpret, so I usually don't put them in the pro/con sections of the text review.

A certain amount of timber variation is obviously necessary and good, but the timbre variation on (for example) Roland SN pianos is described by some as overly strident at higher velocities.

If dynamic range is too narrow the DP can sound compressed, such as the Nord DP voices which are in the low 30's (dB). On the other end some criticize Yamaha DPs for having unrealistically wide dynamic ranges in the 60's, which can perhaps make lighter playing more difficult.

So this is a dual example of "more is better, but only up to a point". And of course a lot depends on how these things are implemented (timbre variation distribution, how it plays, etc.).

An individual who asked me to not reveal their identity generously supplied us with DPBSD MP3 of the new Yamaha P-105. The MP3 (and pix) are of the default piano voice "Grand Piano 1". Those interested can also listen to the compressed layer test:

There's a lot of activity at the low end of the DP market this year. I'm on a constant lookout for beginning instruments for my wife's students, more portable fare for her to take on vacations & the occasional playing out date, what to recommend for those at PW on a tight budget, etc. So the re-spin of the Casio line, and CF samples showing up in Yamaha's entry level are potentially exciting developments.

Let's start with the P-105 note decay times. They are long for the lowest notes, but rather short for mids and highs. The attack and loop samples themselves are pretty short, and I believe this contributes to the crossfades and decays on the lowest notes sounding somewhat uneven. The loops are highly processed and bland sounding, lacking any realistic interbeating or "wobble".

This voice is fairly stretched with 29 samples covering 88 notes. Stretch group transitions are audible over most of the range due to timbre variation and some moderate L&R pan inconsistencies (I believe L&R are probably swapped in the recording).

Pedal sympathetic resonance for the P-105 is subtle, though it helps to smear out the slight audible quavering of the loops in the chord based test. The layers are well blended, but there doesn't seem to be much timbre variation at the highest velocity range where one would expect the most variation to be occurring.

Hats off to this anonymous person for supporting the DPBSD project! Should (s)he and you cross paths, please buy him/her a beer!

Figure 4. Spectral pan view of the stretch test, mid notes, normalized to -1dB to increase clarity. 29 stretch groups are clearly visible and audible over most of the range.

Figure 5. Spectral pan view of the layer test, highly compressed. Two visible layer switches, the second transition of which (@ cursor) is slightly audible to me (I believe Yamaha claims 3 layers). You can listen to this as a separate MP3 file (listed above).

P-95 vs P-105:- Attack sample lengths are about the same. - Lowest note loops on the P-105 are a bit longer. - Stretch group count is a wash. - Three layers on the P-105 make this sample at least 3x larger than the P-95.

P-105 vs PX-350: - PX-350 stretching is a bit less.- PX-350 attack sample lengths are double in the bass, triple in the midrange. - PX-350 loop sample lengths are about the same in the bass and at least double over the rest of the range. - PX-350 has an extra layer.

Dewster:The PX-350 has a relatively long attack phase. But what can generally be said about the sound quality when it comes to length of attack phase on the one hand, and the amount of stretching on the other hand, compared to other DPs with lesser length of attack phase, but much less stretching. Such as: would you prefer a DP which has almost no stretching, though much shorter attack phase? What do you mean with "wobbly" loops?

As the sound decays and the vibrations of the string decrease, different harmonics are emphasized, which create a kind of "beating" of the note. In other words a static synth-like decay is unnatural. A lot of DPs have a problem recreating this natural beating, and so sound rather dead as the note decays.

_________________________"you don't need to have been a rabbit in order to become a veterinarian"

The PX-350 has a relatively long attack phase. But what can generally be said about the sound quality when it comes to length of attack phase on the one hand, and the amount of stretching on the other hand, compared to other DPs with lesser length of attack phase, but much less stretching. Such as: would you prefer a DP which has almost no stretching, though much shorter attack phase?

You're asking me to make something of a Sophie's choice when I believe technology and the economics thereof have advanced enough to make this issue moot. It all depends on the implementation, but I guess I'd generally take longer samples over no stretching.

Could anyone tell me which of the Yamaha tested piano voices would be the closest to the Yamaha CP33?Thanks.

Not exactly 1:1 / apples-to-apples, but the closest would probably be P155, which was tested three different times, though the CP33 is 3-layer vs 4-layer and 64 vs 128 polyphony, IIRC. Not sure how much that factors in Dewster's tests.

Thanks, but I believe that these two are quite different (actually I was trying both of them last weekend and the piano sound is not the same).If I had to bet, I think that maybe the piano sound of the P120 would be closer to the CP33 but I'm not sure...

Thanks dewster, and by the way thank you for your excellent and interesting work.Let's see if someone brings a CP33 sample...

My pleasure, and I'm happy that you find it useful. For me this has been a very fruitful group project, with others providing samples I never would have been able to obtain, and the analysis results shared with other interested parties.

Depress the sustain pedal and strike a note or chord. Lift off the keys but hold the sustain pedal. The notes will sustain, of course, and all digital pianos get this right. Now, while still depressing the sustain pedal, depress the same keys but slowly enough so that no new notes are sounded. While holding down the notes, take your foot off the sustain pedal.

On a real piano the notes still sustain, minus the sympathetic resonance of the other strings which are now dampened. But on most digital pianos, the notes are cut off as soon as you lift off the sustain pedal. It amazes and disappoints me that even some of the most expensive and elaborate flagship digital pianos fail this simple mechanism.

(The next proposed testcase there I couldn't really understand):

Quote:

...Without depressing the sustain pedal, when I softly press down and hold a lower key (maybe a bass C) (without activating its sampled sounds), and then "play" another key (maybe a C one octave higher) it activates a sample to simulate a slight resonance for the lower C key, which I am still holding down. Now, the infidelity occurs when I do the same thing, except I first hold the sustain pedal down before I do the above. In this scenario the cross string resonance does not occur. Which again is not how an acoustic piano would work.

Depress the sustain pedal and strike a note or chord. Lift off the keys but hold the sustain pedal. The notes will sustain, of course, and all digital pianos get this right. Now, while still depressing the sustain pedal, depress the same keys but slowly enough so that no new notes are sounded. While holding down the notes, take your foot off the sustain pedal.

That's test number 3, the "silent replay" test. I do the test with a single note.

Originally Posted By: Temperament

...Without depressing the sustain pedal, when I softly press down and hold a lower key (maybe a bass C) (without activating its sampled sounds), and then "play" another key (maybe a C one octave higher) it activates a sample to simulate a slight resonance for the lower C key, which I am still holding down...

That's test number 2, the "key sympathetic resonance" test. I do this test with notes both above and below the stimulus note.

Originally Posted By: Temperament

Now, the infidelity occurs when I do the same thing, except I first hold the sustain pedal down before I do the above. In this scenario the cross string resonance does not occur. Which again is not how an acoustic piano would work.

I don't test for key sympathetic resonance with the pedal down because something that subtle sounding would be swamped by all the other undamped strings doing their thing (in a real piano). It would be a nightmare to try to hear something like that and report it with any certainty.

Or am I perhaps reading the test description incorrectly? Is the pedal depressed, the keys silently depressed, then the pedal lifted before the stimulus note is played?

Dewster, I believe the proposed added tests actually are not in your original test... you test for their individual components, but not the 'complete' scenario all in one place.

The first proposed test is a single long-procedure test:- Press a key + hold the pedal + silently replay that key + lift the pedal (without releasing the replayed key).

The silently replayed key should keep on sounding as the damper for those strings was always off the strings, it was never lowered... but, according to Temperament, most DPs, upon release of the pedal will quiet all keys even the ones that were depressed after.

The second procedure is:- hold pedal + silently play a note + play a sympathetic note an octave or so higher.

The claim is that, there should be string resonance with the silently depressed key, but that, as you pointed out, is, IMHO, wrong. If the sustain pedal is depressed, what keys are silently held down is irrelevant... all dampers are always up and all strings with harmonics with the newly played note will resonate if the sustain pedal is depressed, so I really don't think that second part of the test is really accurate.

Dewster, I believe the proposed added tests actually are not in your original test... you test for their individual components, but not the 'complete' scenario all in one place.

The first proposed test is a single long-procedure test:- Press a key + hold the pedal + silently replay that key + lift the pedal (without releasing the replayed key).

The silently replayed key should keep on sounding as the damper for those strings was always off the strings, it was never lowered... but, according to Temperament, most DPs, upon release of the pedal will quiet all keys even the ones that were depressed after.

I believe you are describing the DPBSD silent replay test #3 (from the DPBSD readme file):

- Note C2 is played at velocity 100 at time 0 seconds.- Damper pedal is fully depressed at time 1 second.- Note C2 is released at time 2 seconds.- Note C2 is played at velocity 1 at time 3 seconds.- Damper pedal is fully released at time 4 seconds.- Note C2 is released at time 5 seconds (and note G5 is played at velocity 15 to signal the end of the test.

Lots of DPs fail the penultimate step (note damps @ damper pedal release) which isn't the end of the world, but it does give some insight into how much internal bookkeeping they're doing with the keys and pedals.

Thank You Dewster, at first reading I couldn't see it either that it is already included (therefore posted).

1.In the meantime I re-assessed the importance of this as a buying argument for a DP with the same conclusion as you have written:

Quote:

isn't the end of the world

2.

Quote:

I don't test for key sympathetic resonance with the pedal down because something that subtle sounding would be swamped by all the other undamped strings doing their thing (in a real piano). It would be a nightmare to try to hear something like that and report it with any certainty.

Had the same thought therefore couldn't understand it either.3.

Quote:

Is the pedal depressed, the keys silently depressed, then the pedal lifted before the stimulus note is played?

This would be a real test case for the completeness of SR implementation (as my CA51 would fail it). The problem probably is that no key sympathetic resonance will be activated while pedal down. (Once activated however it wan't get destroyed by pressing-lifting the sustain pedal, as I can reproduce it.)

And this behaviour could have more impact on the sound in real playing situations than the original reported cases! (While the player plays the keys he operates the sustain pedal independently).